David Bensley Annotation #2 End of the Line Words: 818
1. Title, director and release year? The End of the Line, directed by Rupert Murray, was released in 2009.
2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
The main argument of this film is that current fishing practices are not sustainable. Humans are destroying marine environments and permanently crippling fish populations; the supply of fish for food is going to hit a tipping point, after which many species will become extinct or endangered.
3. How is the argument or narrative made and sustained? How much scientific information is provided, for example? Does the film have emotional appeal?
The argument is made through a series of studies of particular fish populations. The film starts out with discussions of failing salmon and cod populations, and continues with Bluefin tuna and Chesapeake Bay sharks, then continues with regional ecologies in Alaska and the Exuma Cays in the Bahamas.
4. What sustainability problems does the film draw out? Political? Legal? Economic? Technological? Media and Informational? Organizational? Educational? Behavioral? Cultural? Ecological?
The film mainly discusses economic, behavioral, and especially ecological sustainability problems. No single nation owns the oceans, so it is imperative that international cooperation exists to maintain fish populations, or it will not work. Individuals must also be informed and make changes to their lifestyles by not eating fish from at-risk populations. People are uninformed about the issues, and therefore have no scruples in purchasing whatever kind of fish they desire.
5. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why? I was convinced most by the film’s discussion of Canadian cod populations. It showed at nearly every level the effects of over-fishing on humans and fish. It was abundantly clear that human fishing practices had caused the collapse of the cod population, with fishermen effectively and unknowingly putting themselves out of a job.
Another very persuasive segment of the film was the topic of Bluefin tuna. From the stories of fishermen in the Strait of Gibraltar to the larger-scale studies, it became obvious that Bluefin tuna are failing as a species as a direct result of human consumption. The international quotas were the most concerning: it is unconscionable that the international quota would be 29,500 tonnes per year while scientists say that no more than 15,000 tonnes is sustainable. Despite this, the actual total amount is about 61,000 tonnes! Illegal fishing is a 25-billion-dollar business, and needs to be stopped.
6. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?
I was not especially convinced by the film’s recommendation that Alaskan fishing policies by adopted. While it appears that these policies are effective, there was no evidence that such short seasons and strict limits could be imposed internationally, or that enough fish to meet people’s needs could be provided.
The film also could have used a more developed argument against fish farming as an alternative to trawling or other commercial fishing. There were a few numbers thrown out that seemed to be more of an attempt to sway the viewer’s opinion than to provide any real perspective on the issue.
7. What audiences does the film best address? Why?
The film is best suited for adult audiences around the world, particularly those who eat fish as a significant part of their diet. It discusses global issues, many of which are fairly complex, but makes it very obvious that this is a problem that should concern nearly everybody.
8. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
This film provided great information and detail in discussing the destruction of fish populations and destruction of other marine life. However, the point could have really been “brought home,” so to speak, by a more thorough discussion of how the reduction of fish populations would affect humans.
9. What kinds of action and points of intervention are suggested by the film? If the film itself does not suggest corrective action, describe actions that you can imagine being effective.
The film suggests much stricter limits on fishing seasons and quotas, as well as international cooperation to meet these limits. It is also suggested that people be made more aware of the consequences of their eating habits, including marking certain species as endangered or threatened on restaurant menus.
10. What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out? (Provide at least two supporting references.)
I was compelled to look further into the decline of salmon populations mentioned at the beginning of the film. One resource I found, with information provided by NOAA, claimed that climate conditions were the likely cause of declining salmon populations on the west coast of the United States, at least in 2005-08. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080303145253.htm The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, however, says that the declining populations in the longer term are a result of a combination of overfishing, dams, habitat changes, and hatchery practices. http://www.fws.gov/salmonofthewest/trouble.htm
End of the Line Words: 818
1. Title, director and release year?
The End of the Line, directed by Rupert Murray, was released in 2009.
2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
The main argument of this film is that current fishing practices are not sustainable. Humans are destroying marine environments and permanently crippling fish populations; the supply of fish for food is going to hit a tipping point, after which many species will become extinct or endangered.
3. How is the argument or narrative made and sustained? How much scientific information is provided, for example? Does the film have emotional appeal?
The argument is made through a series of studies of particular fish populations. The film starts out with discussions of failing salmon and cod populations, and continues with Bluefin tuna and Chesapeake Bay sharks, then continues with regional ecologies in Alaska and the Exuma Cays in the Bahamas.
4. What sustainability problems does the film draw out? Political? Legal? Economic? Technological? Media and Informational? Organizational? Educational? Behavioral? Cultural? Ecological?
The film mainly discusses economic, behavioral, and especially ecological sustainability problems. No single nation owns the oceans, so it is imperative that international cooperation exists to maintain fish populations, or it will not work. Individuals must also be informed and make changes to their lifestyles by not eating fish from at-risk populations. People are uninformed about the issues, and therefore have no scruples in purchasing whatever kind of fish they desire.
5. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
I was convinced most by the film’s discussion of Canadian cod populations. It showed at nearly every level the effects of over-fishing on humans and fish. It was abundantly clear that human fishing practices had caused the collapse of the cod population, with fishermen effectively and unknowingly putting themselves out of a job.
Another very persuasive segment of the film was the topic of Bluefin tuna. From the stories of fishermen in the Strait of Gibraltar to the larger-scale studies, it became obvious that Bluefin tuna are failing as a species as a direct result of human consumption. The international quotas were the most concerning: it is unconscionable that the international quota would be 29,500 tonnes per year while scientists say that no more than 15,000 tonnes is sustainable. Despite this, the actual total amount is about 61,000 tonnes! Illegal fishing is a 25-billion-dollar business, and needs to be stopped.
6. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?
I was not especially convinced by the film’s recommendation that Alaskan fishing policies by adopted. While it appears that these policies are effective, there was no evidence that such short seasons and strict limits could be imposed internationally, or that enough fish to meet people’s needs could be provided.
The film also could have used a more developed argument against fish farming as an alternative to trawling or other commercial fishing. There were a few numbers thrown out that seemed to be more of an attempt to sway the viewer’s opinion than to provide any real perspective on the issue.
7. What audiences does the film best address? Why?
The film is best suited for adult audiences around the world, particularly those who eat fish as a significant part of their diet. It discusses global issues, many of which are fairly complex, but makes it very obvious that this is a problem that should concern nearly everybody.
8. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
This film provided great information and detail in discussing the destruction of fish populations and destruction of other marine life. However, the point could have really been “brought home,” so to speak, by a more thorough discussion of how the reduction of fish populations would affect humans.
9. What kinds of action and points of intervention are suggested by the film? If the film itself does not suggest corrective action, describe actions that you can imagine being effective.
The film suggests much stricter limits on fishing seasons and quotas, as well as international cooperation to meet these limits. It is also suggested that people be made more aware of the consequences of their eating habits, including marking certain species as endangered or threatened on restaurant menus.
10. What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out? (Provide at least two supporting references.)
I was compelled to look further into the decline of salmon populations mentioned at the beginning of the film. One resource I found, with information provided by NOAA, claimed that climate conditions were the likely cause of declining salmon populations on the west coast of the United States, at least in 2005-08.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080303145253.htm
The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, however, says that the declining populations in the longer term are a result of a combination of overfishing, dams, habitat changes, and hatchery practices.
http://www.fws.gov/salmonofthewest/trouble.htm